My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
111715
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2015 11:15:56 AM
Creation date
11/10/2015 4:02:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/17/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilmember Pentin asked if there is metadata from the compilation and whether the City could use <br /> this to be able to use it electronically. Mr. Otto said staff will be able to make the entire document <br /> electronic and searchable. They also have a GIS group and they can link it to a GIS layer, as well as <br /> permit software to link it to individual addresses. He clarified that the 106 properties could also have a <br /> link or note to the file. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown thanked Ms. Petrin for her thorough report and asked for the first few reasons for <br /> homes to fall out of the category of being a potential historic resource. <br /> Ms. Petrin said when looking at buildings and comparing them to the permit research they found <br /> discrepancies and surprising findings. There is a fairly architectural traditional character that prevails in <br /> residential neighborhoods in the Downtown and in many cases, regardless if they have been changed <br /> over time, they still retain traditional features. They try to understand the original condition of the <br /> constructed building and whether or not the existing building still conveys its original appearance. What <br /> is quite common in towns is that over time buildings extend at the rear or that additions are out of scale; <br /> however, this necessarily does not mean a building no longer retains integrity. They also look closely at <br /> original door and window opening changes, whether the home retains its original material or not, and <br /> whether the setting contributes to its character. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown asked and confirmed that a change in a mailboxes, door knobs, paint colors or <br /> windows would not necessarily disallow a home to be a potential California resource. <br /> Vice-Mayor Brown said it sounds like the historic context statement isolated 12 styles which are present <br /> in Downtown Pleasanton. Ms. Petrin said they identified the common styles in the statement and when <br /> they looked more closely in the field for the survey, quite often they found good examples of those <br /> styles. <br /> Mr. Otto recapped the summary of the staff report and noted that there were 5 other structures that <br /> were previously surveyed as part of prior development applications, 3 of which qualified, leaving 91 <br /> homes qualifying as historic resources. He lastly displayed 2 Queen Anne style homes, one a qualifying <br /> home and one home which did not qualify and briefly explained reasons for and against being qualified <br /> as an historic resource. <br /> Mr. Otto said the survey will provide several benefits. It will save property owners 30 to 45 days and <br /> upwards of $5,000 by not having to complete their own historic evaluations. It will let allow property <br /> owners to know whether a structure is considered historic and allow them to plan accordingly. It will <br /> allow people to make informed real estate decisions. It will aid staff and its Commissions and Council in <br /> the review of applications that involve changes to structures built before 1942 and will also aid the City <br /> in its preservation of historic structures in the Downtown. For these reasons staff recommends the City <br /> Council accept the historic survey. <br /> He said the second item for consideration is an amendment to the Municipal Code. The City currently <br /> has a process that requires a staff level administrative design review for additions to single family <br /> homes that exceed 10 feet in height, roof changes (pitch) that exceed 10 feet in height, and new <br /> windows installed above 10 feet in height. Some exterior changes not subject to design review could <br /> significantly affect character-defining features of historic homes to a point where the structure no longer <br /> qualifies as an historic resource. <br /> The task force recommended the City adopt a code amendment that would require design review to <br /> ensure no further changes would be made to homes that would no longer allow them to qualify as an <br /> historic resource. Generally, the code amendment would require a staff level design review for <br /> additions and exterior modifications to any floor or height of the structure of a single family home in the <br /> Downtown residential zone that is determined to be a historic resource. Staff will know based on the <br /> historic resource survey which homes are subject to the new regulation. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 8 of 16 November 3,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.